Biblical Interp

[rudywoofs (Pam)]

Then, with the coming of Christ and the writing of the NT, does God hold us more accountable for understanding the OT scriptures than people who *only* had the OT scriptures?

[Derrell M]

Reading this thread must be what it would have been like to sit in on the groups put together by Akiba, Maimonides, and the other great rabbis who spent centuries conducting the debates that resulted in the Talmud.

[archierieus]

Interesting question, Pam. The Bible of Jesus' day being what we call the Old Testament, and the gospels and various letters which we call the New Testament not really being compiled until quite some time had passed, the only Bible which the apostolic church had, was the Old Testament. As I recall, the letters of the apostles to the churches did not receive canonical recognition immediately.

I believe that every Bible truth that we need for salvation may be found in the Old Testament. If that were not true, then those before Christ who will be lost, would have a legitimate case against God. I believe that the New Testament is a much plainer revelation of Christ, chronicling as it does His coming in the flesh. At the same time, I seem to recall reading that somewhere around 30% of the NT is in fact quoted from the OT, so one cannot truly understand the NT without the OT.

Certainly, in these last days we have a much plainer revelation of God's will. While all the truths are in the Bible, we have it spoon-fed to us, so to speak, line upon line. We have no excuse. We have been blessed with the Spirit of Prophecy. I believe that we are accountable for this Light from heaven. I also believe that, since we have much greater light than our forefathers, that we are held to a higher standard. Jesus said something like, 'To whom much has been given, much will be required.'

Permit me to also address your earlier question about understanding the Greek NT. Truly, it is an easy proposition. Ron Lambert referred to Bible software containing the Greek NT. A lay person may access these excellent research tools and, with a little study, learn to effectively use them.

I recommend more than one Greek text, including the Nestle Aland 27th ed., and the Byzantine text. Of course, there is the good ole Textus Receptus, but that one is hoary with age and does not contain the most recent and most accurate scholarship.

Crucial to accurately understand the Greek, are good lexicons. These are the ones which you may depend on in most cases:

Bauer, Gingrich, Danker, "Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Early Christian Literature," Univ. of Chicago Press.

Louw-Nida, "A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament Based on Semantic Domains," Eerdmans I think.

Gerhard Kittel, "Theological Dictionary of the New Testament," Eerdmans.

You will also need Friberg's Analytical Lexicon of the Greek NT.

An Exhaustive Analytical Concordance of the Greek NT can be helpful in doing your own research.

Typically, in a software bundle containing the above, a Greek grammar will be included.

Strong's Concordance and Greek Dictionary, is NOT a good study tool. Nor is Thayer's Lexicon. Both these publications are fluff and Strong's in particular, can be misleading if used alone. Nor do I recommend Vine's, because it is influenced by evangelical theology, from my observation.

Anyway, in a good Bible software package, you will find these sources bundled and easy to use. One such is Logos New Testament Greek module. You can also purchase the Hebrew module for a couple of hundred or so.

I use the above resources myself, but I also double check on my own, since in some cases the editors even of prestigious lexicons are influenced by theological views. One glaring example is in Romans 8--"whom He foreknew, He justified . . ." and so forth, or something to that effect. Well now, the Greek is straightforward; "proginoskoo," to know ahead of time. Obvious, one would think. Enter the Calvinist theologians, who are represented in some articles in Bauer, Gingrich, Danker (called 'Baghdad' btw) Now, they would have it mean, 'whom He loved,' and refer back to the story of Abraham. If you study the word as used elsewhere in the literature, the other occurrences do not seem to support that spin, But, at times theology drives exegesis. A shameful event, when it happens!

At any rate, I pass this along for what it is worth.

Regards, Dave

[benherndon]

[:"red"] "And all these, having gained approval through their faith, did not receive what was promised, because God had provided something better for us, so that apart from us they should not be made perfect." NASB

"These were all commended for their faith, yet none of them received what had been promised. God had planned something better for us so that only with us would they be made perfect." NIV

"And these all, having obtained a good report through faith, received not the promise; God having provided some better thing for us, that they without us should not be made perfect." KJV

"All of these people we have mentioned received God's approval because of their faith, yet none of them received all that God had promised. For God had far better things in mind for us that would also benefit them, for they can't receive the prize at the end of the race until we finish the race." (margin--Greek: "...for us, for they apart from us can't finish.")NLT [/] Heb 11:39.40

>>>>Let's be as clear as possible about this subject---If Christ had not come and be raised back to life from death there would be no hope for anybody past present or future! Soo, the way I read it, if Christ had not come those who lived prior to Christ's coming, dying and resurrection would have no valid hope......none!

The OT presents a failed covenant which was inadequate for salvation. The New Covenant, in His blood, is what validates the OT promises and provides us via the New Covenant the Way to live the Christian life today. The OT people did not have the Christian Way, though it was promised. Promises unfulfilled are worthless. Promises fulfilled are Reality!

The "law" failed to bring us salvation. It was a 'flop'! (pretty severe...Sorry! ) The 'Old Covenant' failed! Therefore, it was downgraded, 'done away' and 'abolished'(as an authority over us)---and replaced with what Paul refers to as Christ's Law. FAITH is belief in Him as the Son of God who was raised back to life from death and our acceptance of that and what HE said as being the truth that guides our lives......and gives us the better promise of salvation. That better 'promise' of salvation is unrealized until He comes again. So-o-o-o, we live in the 'blessed Hope' with confidence and trust in Him. We have the 'faith' that He will do as He said! Praise be God in Christ and Him in us!....though we still be sinners! John 3:16ff!

It can be confirmed and explained with a lot of other OT and NT texts--but this is my little summary at this time.

Read the Bible, folks.....the Bible!!....and especially the NT which is the only real authority on living the Christian life.

Ben

[Ron Lambert]

Ben, who made the covenant in the Old Testament? Does God make flawed covenants?

The new covenant is the everlasting covenant that existed from the beginning. The only flawed "old" covenant was the way that people misunderstood the covenant, and supposed it was a contract between equals, rather than recognizing that ever since Genesis 3:15, the only provision for human salvation has ever been the gift that God would provide in His Son, the "Seed" of the woman, solely by grace, solely on condition of faith. No one could ever be saved by any other means, nor would God offer any other means. The animals sacrificed pointed toward faith in Christ, the true Sin-Bearer. The Ten Commandments, which were written on Mount Sinai by Jesus Christ with His own finger on tablets of stone cut from God's own throne, were promises of restoration into harmony with God, which was the object of God's delivering Israel from Egypt, and of delivering us from sin.

[benherndon]

[:"red"]"When the people saw the thunder and lightning and heard the trumpet, they trembled with fear..stayed at a distance...said to Moses, "Speak to us yourself and we will listen. But do not have God speak to us or we will die."[/]

Equal??....hmmm!

God makes flawed covenants?---No! but if He makes a covenant with 'flawed' people? It only takes one of the parties to a covenant to void the covenant! Yet for a couple thousand years after Sinai the COI often worshpped idols of wood and stone. Isa 40

A major difference between the Old Covenant and the New is that the old was between a Person and His subjects---two parties signing on. In the New Covenant it is only one Person, God alone that makes the New Covenant---we are just beneficiaries. We are not forming-'parties' to the New Covenant---we are beneficiaries. Beneficiaries are NOT forming-parties to the agreement. God alone made the New Covenant. Did your children enter into an agreement with you regarding your will? No, of course not. You alone made it. They are the beneficiaries. That is the way the New Covenant was established--which was different from the way the Old Covenant was established.

Ron, as calmly and considerately as possible and still get the truth across---you appear to have a somewhat flawed comprehension of the (1) Abrahamic Covenant (Everlasting/Eternal Covenant) of Gen 15, (2) the Old Covenant (viz.,which was the Tablets of the Testimony plus all other of the Laws of Moses---the 2 Tablets were inside the Ark but were, contextually, proxy for the entire law--most of which was 'beside' the Ark in the MHP.)----(3) and the New Covenant which is new and different and better (!) than the Old as mentioned in Heb 7 & 8. The Law of Moses is a unit, a single unit, indivisible into 600+ separate commandments. Break any one and all are broken, then AND now!!!

It was a "ministry of death" to be 'done away' and 'abolished' in its authority after Christ's death and resurrection thus making Him the 'authority' (See Heb 1). The OT remains valid history preceding the Christ's fulfillment of all the OT promises. Many lessons are learned about life and the relationship with God from the OT---however, all was preliminary to Christ's coming and very dependent upon it for lasting meaningfulness.

You need to study the Covenants from the Bible ALONE. That is your problem.....I'm sorry to say to you. I understand you, too, because its what I was taught in 20+ yrs of SDA education in the past. But it is flawed in this regard, regardless of all the other excellent points of doctrine and life we were taught. ONLY the NT has the full truth about the life of the Christian----the NT ONLY!! We have been, however, instructed properly by EGW---"the Bible and the Bible alone!" (We just need to DO IT---but...we don't!)

[:"red"] "These were all commended for their faith, yet none of them received what had been promised. God had planned something better for us so that only together with us would they be made perfect." Heb 11:39,40 [/]

Christ fulfilled those OT promises (Matt 5:17). If Christ had not come and been resurrected from death, Paul says, and the NT in general says, all those with hope, like the OT peoples, would have been disappointed! And.....without the resurrection, incidentally, we would never have heard of Jesus....none of us today. IOW, no resurrection equals no salvation!

Study the Bible folks and particularly the NT for in it one finds the New Covenant which replaces the Old Covenant in authority over us--which tablets were that 'ministry of death' described in 2Cor 3, indicated also in Gal 3 & 4, Eph 2, Col 2, and all of Romans and Hebrews...AND all the Gospels, too!

No, Christians today are not under the Old Covenant or any part of it----unless they become Godless, murderers, adulterers, thieves, evil lawbreakers, etc. 1Tim 1:9ff ...but check out the first part of the chapter, too---it says that 'teachers of the Law' often do not know what they are talking about or what they so confidently affirm. Hey!...that's pretty straight, seems to me. Teachers better be very careful.

One's salvation is not dependent upon understanding the covenants---but if one is going to be a teacher of Bible truths, especially about Christ and His reconciliation of man to God, one had better understand and do it properly from the NT point of view, exclusively. After all, it is the ONLY authority regarding the Christian life and Way.

Ben

[archierieus]

Quote:

---

benherndon said:

A major difference between the Old Covenant and the New is that the old was between a Person and His subjects---two parties signing on. In the New Covenant it is only one Person, God alone that makes the New Covenant---we are just beneficiaries. We are not forming-'parties' to the New Covenant---we are beneficiaries. Beneficiaries are NOT forming-parties to the agreement. God alone made the New Covenant. Did your children enter into an agreement with you regarding your will? No, of course not. You alone made it. They are the beneficiaries. That is the way the New Covenant was established--which was different from the way the Old Covenant was established.

---

Well, well . . . actually, we note, firstly, that the Old Covenant, which is recorded in Ex. 19:1 - 8 as I recall, was of the nature of a treaty made by a sovereign. No, the parties were not on an equal footing, but it was nevertheless a conditional covenant. The treaty obligation which Israel promised to perform is stated in v. 8, "All that the Lord hath spoken we will do." Therein lies the fatal flaw of the covenant.

Of course, the 'res' of the covenant is distinct from the covenant itself. For example, continuing your illustration of parent and children, Ben, the parent sets a condition for his 20 year old child to continue living in the family home. The condition is that no narcotics are allowed in the home. The child promises to comply. The child breaks the covenant. The covenant is terminated. However, the 'res' of the covenant--that is, the prohibition against narcotics in the home, is valid and still stands. A different covenant about it will need to be made. The item itself remains unchanged.

In a similar way, the new covenant is found in Heb. 10:15, 16 of so: "This is the covenant which I will make with them after those days, says the Lord, I will write my laws in their minds and in their hearts," or words to that effect. We see, then, that the laws of God are unchanged. What has changed is the mechanism through which compliance with those laws is accomplished.

Actually, God's people who are under the New Covenant do in fact have a treaty obligation. Take a look at John 3:14 - 16, for example, as well as Acts 16, Paul's words to the jailer, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved." The Bible gives us good guidance about what kind of belief is described here. James says that the devils believe and tremble--but they are not saved. To believe in Jesus means to accept His mission to 'save His people from their sins.' It means recognizing one's need of a Savior, repenting of sins and accepting Jesus as Savior and Lord of the life. And Jesus says, "if ye love Me, keep My commandments." Living faith and love for Jesus, then, result in repentance and a new creation in Christ Jesus, and in obedience to His moral law as God writes His laws in our minds and hearts.

I note that this whole topic about the Ten Commandments under the new covenant has been addressed at length in the past on thie forum. Perhaps we need to revisit and repeat that discussion. No problem. Actually, the Bible indicates several things unique to the Ten Commandments. Firstly, God spoke them, and nothing more. He did not speak the ceremonial and civil laws to the people. Secondly, God wrote the Ten Commandments with His own finger. Thirdly, He wrote them on tables of stone. Fourthly, these tables of stone were placed inside the ark. We note from Scripture tha God did not write the civil/ceremonial law with His own finger, nor did He write them on tables of stone, nor was it placed inside the ark.

Your statement, Ben, that the Ten Commandments were a 'proxy' for the ceremonial/civl laws, is your statement, but you do not provide any citation in support of that statement, nor does your statement appear to take into consideration the clear distinctions which God made between His moral law, 'written in stone,' and the civil and ceremonial laws of the Jews.

I also remember that Reformers such as Martin Luther, John Wesley, John Calvin, and many others recognized and wrote about the distinction between the timeless Ten Commandments and the civil and ceremonial laws of the Jews.

And, many Christian churches today teach that the Ten Commandments were not in fact nailed to the cross, but that they stand fast as the faithul witness for Christians today.

I must say, in reading your post, that you seem to be telling Ron that he is not reading the Bible or somehow seems incapable of understanding the Bible. Firstly, regardless of who Ron is, that is demeaning to him. Secondly, I just finished perusing a 34 page tour de force which Ron wrote about Daniel 11. He seems to be familiar with Biblical research. No problem there.

Permit me to suggest, Ben, that you focus on Biblical specifics rather than on abstract or ad hominem attacks on those who post.

Cordially, Dave

[benherndon]

[:"blue"] "Do not read the Word in the light of former opinions. Do not try to make everything agree with your creed. With a mind free from prejudice, search the Word carefully. If, as you read, conviction comes, and you see that, your cherished opinions are not in harmony with the Word, do not try to make the Word fit these opinions. Do not allow what you have believed or practised in the past to control your understanding. Open the eyes of your mind to behold wondrous things out of the Word." ---ST, Oct 3, 1906 [/]

This gives every SDA freedom to read the Bible and make one's own conclusions free from improper teachings. You and I are free to interpret for ourselves from the Bible ALONE. What causes problems and confusion is when extrabiblical ideas are 'melded' into the Word unduly influencing the obvious conclusions as one reads. Christianity, at least main stream Christianity, replete with millions of honest educated readers, depends on the Bible ALONE as their only real authority about believing, living and spreading the Christian Way to others.

[:"blue"]"But God will have a people upon the earth to maintain the Bible, and the Bible only, as the standard of all doctrines and the basis of all reforms.......Before accepting any doctrine or precept, we should demand a plain, "Thus saith the Lord' in its support." GC 545 [/]

That includes everything and every point no matter what the source including our own teachers and preachers. The statistics of recent years for our church in this educated country is that 89% of our new members leave in just a short time. My own observation is that at least a major part of the reason for leaving is just that too many of ouro preachers and teachers have overstated the authority of 'the writings' in some areas. If we could all agree that the Bible is our ONLY reliable source of information about Christianity, much, very much, of our disagreements and arguings would fade away.

After 160 yrs, its about time, isn't it?

Now be careful how you read me on this subject and avoid bearing false witness about what I am saying. I agree that 'the writings' are over all well meant and most often valuable in living a sensible Christian life. But, I'm sorry, they are not the Word that EGW refers to in the first quote above.

This is my point and I hope it will cause some to study the Bible alone in the absence of all outside interference. How can that be against what EGW has said?

Speak with reason, please, and omit the emotion. Its OK for us to disagree..... and say why. It's not an accusation of character fault or an 'ad hominem' attack. Pointing out a mistake or a faulty principle, or having the opinion that one is making a mistake is not a personal attack on one's character. If you think it is, then, you shouldn't be discussing things on a 'forum', which is a 'market place' of contrasting ideas. "Don't wear your feelings on your sleeve"

If this is not a 'forum', then........Bye-Bye!!!

Ben

[benherndon]

May I say that there are those who have left the church and have referred to EGW as a 'fraud'. I strongly disagree with that state of mind and decision. And....that state of mind is caused primarily by too many of our past leaders placing undue 'authority' on what is published over her name.

Sr. White, may she rest in peace, the main founder of our church was in many ways a brilliant lady and leader of people, which was recognized early in her young adulthood. She shed a lot of helpful light on the beliefs and living of people in her time of over 150 yrs ago. She obviously taught a better way to practical living for the Christians of those days. However, she never considered herself anything other than a messenger of the truth about God as she saw it. She agrees that her 'words' are not the equivalent of the Bible nor are they ever to take first place. Its true that she considered her Testimonies to be directly from the angel or Him but when you go look objectively at the circumstances you can tell that sometimes she even overstated her own authority. Never should any human authority speak in conflict, by addition or subtraction, with the Bible. It is closed Canon, and if we are Christians it is absolutely complete in every way on the matter of beliefs, teachings and living and future of Christians and Christianity in the world .... and on towards our Heavenly Home.

So, I support overall the counselling of EGW on living the Christian life in her day as being overall prompted by the Spirit of God, however faulty in minor ways it may or may not have been. The same is to be said for all the historically and current great Christian leaders/writers/translators of the world. However, once again, 'the writings' are NOT the Word she mentions in the first quote I gave in the post above.

I know there are some in our church, often also in positions of power, who consider her writings to never be in conflict with any of scripture in any way and that the writings are virtually and mysteriously a third 'testament' of 'scripture'. My study of the Bible and 'the writings' causes me to firmly disagree with those people. I have faith that the Scriptures were chosen as they were by the Holy Spirit to be the only authoritative resource on believing and living the Christian life from now to the end of this world.

Ben

[archierieus]

Here is what I watched happen on this thread. The original poster had questions about the Bible and versions of the Bible. Later in the thread, Ron Lambert posted something about covenants, as I recall. When you responded to his post, you were suggesting that Ron was not relying on the Bible, but was somehow being influenced by Ellen G. White. In reading Ron's post, I found no reference to Ellen G. White, nor anything that could be construed as a reference to EGW. Yet, you went on at some length saying that you could tell that he was reading EGW because of the position he was taking.

Quite frankly, that reminds me of what I have read about Tail Gunner Joe in the 50's. Careers were ruined by McCarthy's testifying to the Senate subcommittee, as he held up a folder saying that the folder contained the names of suspect individuals. Finally, someone asked to look in the folder, and discovered that the alleged names and the incriminating info simply weren't there.

This situation is somewhat different, in that the accusation that someone has read EGW is not suggested as a clear and present danger to national security, nor is doing so in any way legally or morally suspect.

Yet, within the limited confines of certain subcultures, including some subcultures within the Adventist communion and some within evangelical Christianity, reference to EGW is viewed with the same air of suspicion as were the suspected Communist sympathizers in McCarthy's era.

(Sadly, General Eisenhower himself contributed to the national mindset with his quite emphatic acceptance of the views of the liberal internationalist establishment. Undoubtedly, such luminaries as George Kennan and . . . oh, what was his name, Paul Nietsche I think, contributed to the hysteria.)

Anyway, here is how it looks to this observer. It seems like whenever contributors on these threads say something pertaining to salvation, to the covenants, to God's law, to the Sabbath, with which you disagree, you then label such contributions and posters as being 'tainted' with the writings of EGW.

However, you have no way of knowing if these individuals or their views are in fact 'tainted' with her writings. That would be conjecture on your part.

Speaking for myself, my research and my work in developing Bible studies and presentations, are based on the Bible. I do not rely on Sister White for doctrinal understandings. She did not purport to be a theologian. I am not aware of any formal exegesis which she has done--at least, none that I have heard of. I do not rely on commentaries and such in doing my work. They are tertiary sources at best. I stick with the Word of God--sola scriptura--for my work product.

If the results of my research happen to agree with something which EGW has written, that does not automatically mean that my work has been influenced by her writings. In fact, quite the opposite could have taken place. The possibility is present that whatever position she has taken may be correct, and that as others search the Scriptures for themselves, they may come to similar conclusions as are found in Sister White's writings. Have you considered that possibility, Ben? How would you know which option would be correct?

None of what I have written above is intended in anyway to diminish the prophetic gift of Ellen G. White. Speaking for myself, I am simply doing what she herself often counseled. Go to the Bible, and learn Bible truth from the Bible, not from someone else's works. As I continue to carefully research the Scriptures, I find stronger and yet stronger Scriptural support for the fundamental Bible teachings espoused by the Seventh-day Adventist church, including the seventh-day Sabbath, the immutability of the Ten Commandments, the investigative judgment, and so forth.

I believe it is very important for you, and anyone else, to recognize that other individuals just may be competent and quite capable of doing careful Bible research, guided by the Holy Spirit. Rather than make insinuations about someone's work, it would seem preferable for posters to compare Scripture with Scripture and, with God's blessing, come to a clear understanding of Bible truth.

I should be glad to carry forward a full Scriptural discussion with you, Ben, about the covenants, the moral law of God, the sanctity of the Sabbath, etc. Let me know if you wish to proceed.

Cordially, Dave

[benherndon]

What I write in response to another post is written with the basic desire on my part to stimulate others who have not, so far, IMO, limited their spiritual instruction to the Bible alone. Knowing the Bible & EGW as you do, how can that possibly be wrong?

You wrote:

Quote:

---

I believe that every Bible truth that we need for salvation may be found in the Old Testament. If that were not true, then those before Christ who will be lost, would have a legitimate case against God. I believe that the New Testament is a much plainer revelation of Christ, chronicling as it does His coming in the flesh. At the same time, I seem to recall reading that somewhere around 30% of the NT is in fact quoted from the OT, so one cannot truly understand the NT without the OT.

Certainly, in these last days we have a much plainer revelation of God's will. While all the truths are in the Bible, we have it spoon-fed to us, so to speak, line upon line. We have no excuse. We have been blessed with the Spirit of Prophecy.....

---

And Ron wrote:

Quote:

---

Ben, who made the covenant in the Old Testament? Does God make flawed covenants?

The new covenant is the everlasting covenant that existed from the beginning.....

---

These posts, these parts of them, using the Bible alone for 'doctrine and reproof', contained sufficient 'wrongness', IMO, to merit comment.

I still stand by what I posted as being in accordance with Bible truths. I wish to understand and teach from the Bible. I wish also to learn where I mistakenly interpret scripture.

However, disagreement, or, reflection upon where one may be getting his opinions, it NOT a "ad hominem" attack on character!

You are both good people, good Christian people! We don't HAVE to agree 100%, to get along, do we?

I have a close friend who always signs off with---

"Keep looking up!"

Ben

[archierieus]

Quote:

---

benherndon said:

These posts, these parts of them, using the Bible alone for 'doctrine and reproof', contained sufficient 'wrongness', IMO, to merit comment.

---

Please state precisely the errors which you allege. And, please give specific citations of Scriptural authority for your position, so that I may study them as well. Also, please do specify which version of the Bible you are using.

Thank-you.

Cordially, Dave

[benherndon]

Dave, I have explained, in response to your posts(also Ron's) what I disagreed with. It'll be best for you, if interested, to go back and read the responses I made beginning with your response to Pam--something to the effect that the OT people may not have needed anything other than the info in the OT to obtain their salvation. I also objected to comments about the Covenants. And, I objected to Ron saying the COI at the time of the 'agreement/covenant' between them and God were "equals." It was not a contract between equals, I pointed out.

Too busy to go into long posting now. My lovely elderly wife of 62+ yrs is having acute problems.

I'll be happy if our people learn about God, His Son, and Their salvation for us sinners from the Bible alone. The Bible tells the complete story. Nobody should either add or subtract from its revelation of Them and Their plan. Nobody ever completely exhausts the information They and Their chosen writers present in the Bible itself. No other writers are 'chosen' like the Bible authors were, IMO. Some parts of Christianity take exception to this. They are usually referred to as 'cults'. Some internet web sites attempt to list us as a 'cult'. I try to resist that.

Have a good day.

Ben

[archierieus]

Quote:

---

benherndon said:

Dave, I have explained, in response to your posts(also Ron's) what I disagreed with. It'll be best for you, if interested, to go back and read the responses I made beginning with your response to Pam--something to the effect that the OT people may not have needed anything other than the info in the OT to obtain their salvation. I also objected to comments about the Covenants. And, I objected to Ron saying the COI at the time of the 'agreement/covenant' between them and God were "equals." It was not a contract between equals, I pointed out.

---

You did make some statements, although you did not give any Bible references in support. So, then, was there enough information in the Old Testament for people living at the time, to know how to be saved? You recognize, don't you, that if there was not, then God would be unfair in denying salvation to them. They would have a very plausible argument. But, aren't the fundamental truths of salvation taught in the Old Testament as well? Doesn't the Old Testament speak of the Messiah? Wasn't the coming of the Messiah the blessed hope which sustained countless Israelites over the centuries? Weren't the shepherds at Christ's birth looking forward to the Messiah? Isn't the real difference that the Old Testament looked forward to the coming Messiah, while the New Testament looks back to the Messiah Who has come? And, of course, both testaments point forward to the return of Jesus and the heavenly home. If you like, Ben, I can take the time to provide references from the OT to show this. Let me know.

As for the covenants--now that is another question. First of all, you do recognize now that the Old Testament is not the Old Covenant, correct? That was an issue last year. Secondly, the Old Testament describes the New Covenant (in Ezekiel, for example, as well as in Isaiah, etc.) as well as the everlasting covenant between God and His people.

Ron said what? You have him saying that the old covenant was between equals. He said no such thing. He said that the PEOPPLE treated it as between equals. That was one of the problems with the Old Covenant, as he pointed out.

Now, then, as for an exposition of the covenants, the moral law of God, the investigative judgment, the Bible Sabbath, and other important Bible doctrines--I should be glad to discuss these further on the forum, in depth, if you so desire. You need only say the word.

Regards, Dave

[benherndon]

My wife had a TIA Sunday and she is my main concern right now.

It takes too long to post over and over---especially to those who don't want to believe one anyhow. One has to be so-o-o careful about what and how one says or posts it. Notice that your responses to my posts were not at first on what I had to say----but...the 'way' I said it! Haha

2Cor 3 says, "Their minds were made dull, for to this day the same veil remains when the old covenant is read.....Even to this day when Moses is read, a veil covers their hearts." ---a pretty severe statement which SDAs and their teachers have not taken as seriously as they should have, IN MY OPINION!! They should get the 'covenants' straight in their minds in order to understand the text.

Remember also, that Moses brought Law, but, Christ brings grace and truth. John 1

See the contrast in the light of 2Cor 3?

Talk to you later, maybe.

[Gregory Matthews]

Ben:

We wish you well, and your wife, as you care for her.

When you have time, I would welcome a discussion between you and Dave on this subject. And, don't tell me that you are not mentally up to it. You got you mind. <img src="/ubbtreads/images/graemlins/icon_salut.gif" alt="" /> It works well.

[Clio]

Gregory -

Have you ever been the primary care-giver for someone who is catastrophically ill?

While Ben does have his mind, and it does work well, when you are the care-giver for someone who is severely ill, your mind is often not up to the task of detailed and intense discussion. It is no reflection on the caregiver, nor on the one who needs care. It simply is..

It may be, indeed, that Dr. Ben may not be up to this discussion for quite some time. I have found in my care of my husband that during the time immediately after his return home from the hospital, and often continuing after others think it should have ceased, my mind is not up to it's usual level of reliability.

Often there are things I know I should do, but I just can't remember them, I can't even frame the questions that would point me in the right direction. I forget, know that I am forgetting, and can't do anything about it. I also have found that just the energy needed to frame careful thoughtful comments is too much. Often just opening the Bible and staring at whatever text it fell open to, was all I could find the strength for.

I knew I was in real trouble when I sat at work looking at an excel spreadsheet on my PC and couldn't remember how to manipulate the columns in the spreadsheet.

Please do accept his statement (if he makes it) that he may not be up to a mentally taxing debate just now.

Dr. Ben, please know my prayers for you and your wife will rise continually. Please do keep us posted on her health.

Clio

[Gregory Matthews]

Clio, you make a very valid point, and I appreciate you doing so.

In actuality, I was not making any reference to anything posted publicly. Rather, I referenced a comment that Dr. Ben made to me in a PM. I felt that he would understand the context, and take it as a positive affirmation. But, the context was unknown to the rest of you, so, possibly I should not have made it as a public comment.

Sometimes I make comments without fully thinking them through. I appreciate your bringing this to our attention.

[Clio]

Ooops. I assumed too much perhaps. If I have overstepped, I apologize.

Clio